












I 















I 



4 o 









%♦ ^0 



'bV 











_ ,. **'% "^^P- .-^^'\ •.^;- **'"^*. '^ 



^-^vV ^^jm^r.\ ^^JU^ oV^^^ia'- ^OV^ ''Jm^^^\ '^^r<i 




\ '^^0^ r, 




^^•n^. 




'AO' 




















.*^ ..-'. ^. 











« r Ji. K U H 



OF 



HON. AV.'h. KELSEY, OF NEW M)]{K, 



1- , 




"^z 



THE SLAVERY QUESTION; 



DELIVERED 



IN THE HOtJSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JULY 29, IS5C. 



WASHINGTON: 

PHiNTttD AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICB. 

1856. 



THE SLAVEHY QUESTION. 



The RouK<! being in the Cominjltee of the Whole on the 
state or the Uuion, 

Mr. KELSEY said: 

Mr. Ciivm>!\v: We are now in Committor of 
the Whole on tl»c slate of llic Union, and all mat- 
ters that r<-iatc to the welfare of the Union are 
proper subjects for discussion. There are several 
topics upon whicli I desire to express my views, 
but tlie l)rief period allowed me to address the 
committee, eomhined wiili the state of my liealth 
tliis evening, admonishes mo tiiat 1 shall be un- 
able to toucii upon more than oneor two of them. 

Sir, I do not stand here for tlie purpose of 
<:HiestioniH;? the elaims of either the " Demo- 
cratic" or the " American" parties to that kind 
of " nationality" which appt-ars to obtain so 
much favor on the other side of thi^ Hout>e. I 
have no doubt thej'^are both "sound" on the sub- 
ject of slavery, as that expression is understood 
at the South. 

I listened to the aro;uments of the Gentlemen 
from Kentucky, [Mr. Cox and Mr. Uurvktt,] 
who discussed this question — the one on Fridiiy 
evening;, and the other last evening — and I con- 
fess that each of them succeeded in satisfying 
mc that he was risrht; at least so far as his own 
candidate for President is concerned. Tlipyeach 
demonstrated, I think, that in case Mr. Fillmore 
or Mr. Ruflianan shall be elected, the South will 
have reason tube perfectly satisfied. Mr. Fremont 
is the only candidate before the people, for the 
office of President, who, if elected, will oppose the 
further extension of slavery. Fully believing 
this, and tliat he comos up to the Jeffi-Tsonian 
standard of qualification for office — that he is 
honest, capable, and faitltful to the Constitution — 
I support him. 

But, sir, I did not rise for the purpose of 
making a presidential speech. I prefer to discu.S8 
principles, rather than parties or men; and as 
there is one great question before the American : 
people that overshadows all others, I will direct 
my attention to that. All other questions are' 
coliateral or subordiuate to it in the public miitd | 



I at tills time. That question is, Shall dlnvery be 
I extended into the free Terrilories of the Unilc4 
States .' 

Gentlemen from the South tell us that they ask 
no legislation for the purpose of exlendin'j sla- 
very, but at the sam<" time they rhum n construc- 
tion of the Constitution, and of the laws nlrendjr 
in existence, that would render any leirislation la 
behalf of slavery extension entirely superfluous. 
Almost every srenileman who hns spoken on 
tliat side of the House has made this rj.um, by 
insisting that they have the right to go into the 
common Territories of the United States and take 
their" property" withthem. Onegentlemaf^ (.Mr. 
Warverj from Georgia, in the boldest, as wel 
as the ablest speech that I have listened to on this 
subject, discarded the specious phrase used bjr 
most of his associates, and took his position m 
the following language. He says: 

" I .'••hall endeavor to inalnl.iiii »nil tn i1cni'>n«lrntf that, 
in .iccordancK wiUi those tuiitlamentiil prniniilpi'. niv cnm- 

slitueuti< have both the letfiU and rquiLib! •" ' !ik» 

their slave property into tlie eoiiiiuon tefrili>r\ 

and to have it proteeied tliere ; ami that ih' ■ t 

has no power under the Conditulion to depm. ..jx 

right." 

Now, sir, I take issue with the gentleman upon 
this proposition; and as it claims for sluveholder^ 
the right to spread slavery over all the Territonee 
of the United Suites, by merely emi'.'rnting !• 
those Territories with their slnve.s, it JMromr* 
necessary for us to inquire by what tenup- that 
institution exists anywhere, and how it haj 
acquired this right of unlimited exjwnsiori' It 
is manifest that the Constitution of ' '' • 1 
States did not create .slavery — f.ir.-l.n I 

before the Constitution was made. '! 
tution does not uphold slavery, iH-caimo e«cii 
State has an undoubted riglit to abolish it withm 
its own limits, and wherever its exclusive juru- 
diction extends. 

Sir, the institution of slavery was eatabli«he4 
and is uph.ld wholly l>y f"or«— by the power of 
the strniisjer over thi' weaker. Ii neviTcan rxi«t 
unless one man, or one cia.is or nre of men hare 
conquered and subdued another nuui, or daas or 



race of men, and compelled them to obey the jj 
laws prescribed by the conquerors. When the 
conqueror has deprived the conquered of the "in- 
alienable ri£;ht " to " liberty and the pursuit of I 
hapjiiness," the relation of master and slave ex- J 
ists, but not till then. This nlation can only be 
upheld by actual force, or by legal enactment, 
or by long continued usage, recognized by the , 
supreme power in the State, which has all the 
force and effect of positive law; and it can only 
exist where the master has absolute and exclu- 
sive jurisdiction, j' 

If this institution exists by virtue of State laws, 
then it extends no further than the jurisdiction of 
the Slates by whose laws it is upheld extends. , 
And in the States where it exists, I have no ij 
purpose to interfere with it. But I deny the right jj 
or the power of citizens of slave States to carry jj 
their slave laws into United States Territories by | 
emigrating to those Territories with their slaves. 
They claim the right to go where the power that 
makes and upholds their slave laws has no juris- 
diction, where there is no law sanctioning sla- 
very, and there claim the right to hold their slaves. 
Let us illustrate this proposition. Suppose a 
citizen of Georgia should remove with his slaves 
into a Territory of the United States: he must 
continue to hold them in the Territory, because 
the laws of Georgia have conferred on him the 
power to do so. But suppose that Georgia, after 
nis removal, should abolish shivery, (a very im- 
probable thing, I admit:) could that act reach or 
in any way affect the owner of slaves who had 
emigrated from Georgia into a Territory of the 
United States? Most clearly it could not, because 
he would be beyond her jurisdiction, and no 
longer her citizen. We should then have this 
singular state of things — that the State of Georgia 
had conferred power, which she could not revoke, 
to be exercised within Territories over which she 
had no jurisdiction, by persons over whom she 
had ceased to have any control; and slavery 
•would exist in the United States Territories under 
and by virtue of the laws of a Slate that had dis- 
carded the system for itself; and as the gentle- 
man's doctrine denies that the General Govern- 
ment has any power under the Constitution to 
prevent the introduction of slavery into the Ter- 
ritories, or 10 abolish it when once there, it fol- 
lows that citizens of the slaveholding States have 
the excliviive control of the question, whether sla- 
very shall exist in the Territories or not. 

Is this the " equality of the citizens of all the 
States," about which we have had so much elo- 
quent declamation during the present session on 
this floor? is there no scclionalism in claiming 
for citizens of the slaveholding States the exclusive 
power to determine whether slavery shall go into 
the Territories or not? 

Sir, it has been repeatedly shown by gentlemen 
on this sidi; of the llouse, that the franiers of our 
Constitution regarded and treated slavery as an 
evil that would, in the course of time, cease to 
exist by the voluntary action of the States where 
it was tolerated, and not as an institution to be 
cherished and extended and pcTpetuated; and that j 
least of all did they imagirie that they iuul left this | 
evil the {»ower of indefinite expansion, with no 
power, anywhere, to check or control it. i .shall 
therefore spend no time in endeavoring to deinon- 
sirale the truth of these propositions, but will pro- 



ceed to examine some other positions assumed in 
liis argument by the gentleman from Georgia. 
He says: 

" It will be recollcptert that the Federal Constitation was' 
not establislii'd to create new rights, but to secure and pro- 
tect exislin;; Tislit». Hence it is material to inquire, what 
were the rif;lil.-; of the people of the slaveholding States in 
regard to their slave property, before and at the time of tlie 
adoption of that Constitution .' I sliall maintain, and under- 
take to establish, that the title of my constituents to their 
slave property is not based upon any positiif law of the 
State, but that it rests for its foundation upoii the universal 
law of nations, which recognized slaves as property, l>efore 
and at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. That 
bel'ore and at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, 
the citizens of the State of Georgia — the same being a sov- 
ereign, independent State — had the undoubted right, ac- 
cording to the well established principles of international 
law — to lake their slave property into any foreign territory : 
provided there was no law in that foreign territory prohilit- 
ing its introduction there, and to have it protected in such 
foreign territory — that the Jaw of nations was adopted as a 
part of the common law in the original thirteen States, con- 
stituting a part of the law of the land bel'ore and at the time 
of the adoption of the Federal Constitation." 

Sir, the Constitution was established not only 
to protect " existing rights," but to define, to 
some extent, what those rights were. The Con- 
stitution, and the whole theory of our Govern- 
ment, are based upon the great fundamental truth, 
that all men are created with an equality of rights. 
The battles of the Revolution were fought to es- 
tablish this principle, and the Constitution was 
adopted to uphold and maintain it. The Consti- 
tution did not abolish slavery in the States, nor 
did it abolish any of the municipal laws of the 
Slates. But that instrument is, in itself, a strin- 
gent penal statute against any infrirvgenraent of the 
right of personal freedom, within the Territories 
over which it has exclusive jurisdiction. 

The gentleman says that the title of his con- 
stituents " to their slave property is not based 
upon any positive law of the State, but that it rests 
for its foundation upon the universal law of na- 
tions, which recognized slaves as />ro;)e7-ti/, before 
and at the time of the adoption of the Constitu- 
tion;" and " that the law of nations was adopted 
as a part of the common law in the original thir- 
teen States, constituting a part of the law of the 
land at the time of the adoption of the Federal 
Constitution." 

Now, sir, I deny that we have incorporated 
into our system any principle, whether recog- 
nized by the law of nations or not, that is at war 
with the great principle of tlie equality of humau 
rights. We have not adopted the principle that' 
kings rule by divine right; we do not recognize 
the hereditary right of one class of men to make 
ourlaws. And yet the " universal law of nations" 
recognized both these principles " before and 
at the time of the adoption of the Constitution," 
just as fully as it recognized slavery. Sir, our 
Government was founded upon principles radi- 
cally different from any nation on earth. Our 
doctrine is, that " Governments derive their just 
powers from the consent of the governed." In 
no other nation was this principle recognized and 
acted upon at the time our Government was 
formed. And how can it be said that we have, 
by implication, adopted principles and laws that 
are directly antagonistic to the fundamental prin- 
ciples of our Government. Sir, whatever there 
was in the law of nations antagonistic to our 
system, was abolished, so far as we are con- 
cerned, by our Constitution. 



It hns l)ocome quite fashionable for pjpnllemrn 
on liiis floor to sneer at llif t:rcat |i'ii(liii!r priiici- 
pli'S iiniioimceil in t|ie Declarntioii of Indeprnd- 
cncc — at tiie " suif-i'vidont" irutlia upon wliicli 
our j)olilic-al systoni is fonndcil; bocuusi- those 
truths stand like a wall of (ire across their |>atli, 
to arrest ilie further s))read of hun)an slavery. 
Let {gentleman refleet that tiie Deelnialion of In- 
dependence did not create those principles — it only 
adopted and announced what was already true — 
«a the foundation of our political system. If 
those principles are not sound, our revolutioiutry 
fathers wen- rehi-ls ajjainst riu;lilful authority, 
and our Uevoluiion was only a successful rehel- 
lion. IJut if those principh-s are sound and rifjht, 
then the institution of slavery must be regarded 
now as it was rei^arded by the franiers of the 
('onstitutinn — as an evil to be i^ot rid ot', not as 
nn institution to bo cherished and extend(td. Sir, 
the people of this nation have never adopted 
slavery as a ;ialional institution. fcJuch a claim 
was never put forth in its behalf until it was 
feared that all other means mis^ht fail of subjecting 
Kansas to tiiat interest, liut now it is claimed, 
with the utmost assurance, that no man or ])arty 
can be national in their views unless they sub- 
scribe to tlie doctrine, that citizens of the slave 
States have the right to spread slavery in the 
Territories wherever they may see fit to go, and 
that there is no power in the (jrovernment to pre- 
vent them from doing so. And this right is con- 
ferred on them by the law of nations, the gentle- 
man tells us. Sir, the gentleman has not told us 
■when or iiow the law of nations became incor- 
porated into, and became a part of, the municipal 
laws of this Government; and even if he is cor- 
rect in basing the title to slave property upon 
that law, 1 think he has extended his claim in 
that behalf much further than the cases he cites 
will warrant. The cases he cites were decided 
by the high court of Admiralty and the court of 
King's Bench, in England; and they decide that, 
in Iyi7, English cruisers could not legally cap- 
ture slave ships and their cargoes on the high 
seas, when owned by subjects of a nation that 
had entered into no treaty stipulations a£;ainst 
the slave trade. They decide nothing more than 
this: that England could not rightfully interfere 
with the municipal or maritime regulations of a 
nation with whom she was at peace. If the 
owners of these slaves had voluntarily taken 
them to England, for the purpose of there hold- 
ing them as property, these cases would have 
borne a much closer analogy to the claim made 
in behalf of the "peculiar institution" by the 
gentleman from Georgia; but, as they stand, it 
Seems to me tliey do not sustain the point he has 
made. 

Sir, 1 propose to meet the gentleman with au- 
thorities upon the issue between us; and it seems 
to me that the cases 1 shall cite entirely over- 
throw, not only i)ie inferences he seeks to draw 
from the English cases he has cited, but the whole 
argument he has made, ingenious, able, and plaus- 
ible as I concede it to be. The authoritiis I cite 
are American authorities, and the^ have this ad- 
vantage over those cited by the gentleman, that 
they are directly upon one of the main points in 
liie controversy, and they need no argument to 
enforce or apply them. 



In thff case of Jonwi affninat Van Zaiwli, « 
McLean's Ueportii, 5%, the court i»«y»: 



Willi.- II I, 

Snile I 
0/ tl, 



•tli.|. 



n !>••( 



■Ir* 



: ncK 



lll> II) Vinilr ..' ■ 

ii'tiiiiii il ; ami II ;i 

!*U\tr, llr It /rrr, 

<au ; ami rt-<-«pU.iii, m ., 
tiKiri/.til oiWy II) thr <'<>r<»Utiit|i>ii an,! . ^ 

'lliiru M no ||<'liriii| idiiiiijjr iii lilc /ui. . .t.icb 

re«iuiri-* null .urr.-iij.-r." 

In deciding the crh-ltmtrd CMMfof l'nii$> n. thr 
Slate of IVniiHylvunin, li! iVtera, 54U, the court 

lays down these propusitions: 

" Hy the liiw III' iinliuiii, nn Hint'- >• •- • •■ .-.-.— «!»<■ 

Klavi-ry ill niiiitli<-r .'^inii'. Iii«aii> 
a matter ol iiiti-riiniKiiial rielii. . 

ileriiied Id he a iin-re fiiuni< i;miI n 

aiitl limited to, lilv raiije u( lint lernuiiial Um>. 

The same principles wen- dintinrtly rrcoeniud 
in three English cases decided bifon- ihc IIi-toIii. 
tion, all of which are cited by the court in d'cidin); 
the case of Prigg r.i. the Stale of reiMiHyUnnia. 

If your slaves are not held by virtue of your 
State laws, you have no power, under the Con- 
stitution, to reiaki- ilii-m as fugitiven from w-rvic*-. 
Il is only persons held to labor or service " btfUu 
laws of the Hlalcs'^ from which iliey eica|M-, that 
can be returned; and if a slave should i-acape 
from a Tcrrilonj where there is no law on Ihc 
subject of slavery, wilT anybody pr.trnd that he 
can be retaken and remanded into slavery.' I 
commend this question to the careful coiiHidcra- 
lion of those strict constructioniHts of the Con- 
stitution on this floor, whoclaim the riglit to carry 
tlie iii'litution of slaviry, uinii-r tin- iiuiiie of pro- 
peity, into the Territories of the United Slates. 
And I desire, in this connection, to call altcnliun 
to the opinion of a distinguished jurist of my 
own State — a Democrat, "tJyed in the wool" — 
one of the hardest of thi^ Hartis — the Hon. Urccnc 
C. Bronson, formerly chief justiceof the supreme 
court, and afterwards chief judge of the court of 
appeals — a man whose legal atiainineiits and 
ability are known and acknowledged throughout 
the Union. In a letter dated July 15, Itt4d, after 
declining an invitation to attend a political meet- 
ing, lie says: 

" Slavery cannot exist wliPrc there M no poMtive law if> 
uphold il. Il i:i iiui necesi^ary lliat it should b<- Inrbuldi-n ; 
il IS enough thai il is iioi sipeeially aiilliori/.id. IT (In owner 
of slaves removes with or sends Uiem iiito any country, 
State, or Territory, where t-lavi-ry does noi r^i.i by law, 
they will from that moment bcoomi- free im-n, and will have 
as good a right to rominand the inasK-r. a.-. In- will have to 
eoiinnaiid them, i^iaie laws havr no i-xira lirrilonal au- 
thority; and a law of Virginia which inak<-' a man niilaw 
there, cannot make him a slave in New Vork, u« bcxond 
tlie lloeky .Mouiilains. 

'• Entertaining no doiibl upon ihnl question, I can *rc nn 
occasion for asking ('Kiigres.N to Ifgi.-late ag-.iin!il the rxlrn 
sion of slavery into fn-e territory, ami, a> a qu>-<li<>n of 
policy, I think it had beiK r be h-i aloiir. If our Miulbcm 
hrelhren wi.-h to carry llnir slavi-s loHrt-r"" ^' ' ^'^ 'i<-o, 
or California, lln-y will be undi-r liie m • j « 

law to warrant it ; and it will then be ii 'i-r 

Stales to re^^isl Ihe measure, Ofl I cannot J . uW, 

with iinwavpring lirmiu'ss. 

" [ would uoi needlessly move ihin qui-»lion, »• it U on» 

of an e.xoiung nature, winch lend- i 1...11 il .iivi.i.m. and 

may do iis Imrni as a people. I W"'; ■»«•■ 

hollliiiu Stales to ileride for thrin «■* 

rcspoiisibilily, when, if ever, Uie n ■ ''r4 

in Congress.' Il may Im- that llie) »iil ,». : vci 

move at all, especuilly as 11 serins iwitli ■ 'd 

thai neither Oregon, Vcw Mexirn, nor r . vHI 

ailnpted toslave labor. Hut if our nouihfrn bi.Uinn Uiould 
make tJie quenuun, we kholl liavo do climcr but U> p>««l 



6 



It, 811(1 tliPii, H-liatcVT consequences may fnllnw, I trust 
nil- |.r.i|);.- 1.1 ilii it-^ l-u.lK-> will KivL- a u.iiii'd voice against 
Dlli>wing slavery on n single fool of soil where it is not uow 
authorized hv law. 

" 1 aui, very resuectfullv, your ohodient servant, 

' "<;i<i:knk(;. UKoNsoN. 

'•To Messrs. J. Cociirxn anil others, eonimittce. 

It is truo tlint wo. are not asked to enact laws 
tn warniiit tlic hnldinj: of slaves in the Territo- 
rus, hut we ;ire rnll.-d tipon to admit that slaves 
niay be ri?liitully Ix'ld in the Territories without 
law. The vt ry qnestion is made in substance, 
•which Judjjc Bronson said would kjive the peo- 
ple of tlie free Slates no choice but to meet it, 
■whiitevtr conseiinencfs niisjht follow, but where 
he stands now in this controversy 1 know not. 
1 only know that very many, perhaps most of 
those with whom he had formerly acted, acqui- 
esce in the new doctrine upon which I have been 
commenting. 

But, sir,.! turn tn another proposition laid down 
by the <;enilemaii from Georj^'ia. I deny that 
" the tiilc to slave property" anywhere " rests 
upon the same foundation as title to any other 
species of property." The Creator gave man 
dominion over the earth and its productions — 
over tin: fish of llie sea and the fowls of the air, 
and over eVerj' living tliiyg thatmoveth ujxm the 
earih, and everything that he intended man should 
use or control as property; but he has never 
given this kind of dominion to one man over 
another. He gave equal right.s to all men. Our 
title to everyiiiing that is legitimately property 
rests upon an older and a higher law than the 
Constitution, and tiie Constitution only guaran- 
ties that title. 1 venture to refer to the " higher 
law,"]iarily because I understood the gentleman 
from Alabama, [Mr. Shorter,] in his speech | 
some time ago, ui claim that slavery was upheld 
by a " higher law" than the Constitution, though 
I believe he did not cite any particular authority 
upon that point, and in his printed speech the 
remark is sciniewliat nmdified. I havi' indicated 
the source of the " higher law" that 1 have re- 
ferred to; and gentlemen are doubtless so familiar 
with the authoriiy, that a inore particular refer- 
ence will be unnece-ssary. 

Again, sir, I deny that the law of nations ever 
estaijiished or iipln-ld slavery in any country. 
Each 8ov<-ri'i;;ii State makes law for itself on tliat 
subject. The law of nations only regulates the 
intercourse of nationn, and declares and defines 
their rights and duiie.s in regard to eacli other. 
It doe* not necessarily have anything at all to 
do with esiabli.shing or upholding the municipal 
law.s of any country. This attempt to place 
slavery in the Suites, und<;r the protection of tlie 
law of natinn.-^, musi lail, and with it must fail 
the claim, thai the citizens of slaveliolding States 
may, liy ilnir own volition, carry that institution 
into the Territories of the United States, and 
e«lublis!i it then; in defiance of the General Gov- 
cnimeni. 

Sir, the sovereignly of the Territories, as well 
as the ownership of their soil, is vested in the 
General Government, and no Slate can claim to 
exercise any (uie of tho.se sovereign rights any 
more than she could claim iIk^ ownership of a 
porlif>ri of thi' .soil. To establish the institutions 
of a Slate or TeTritory is to exercise sovereign 



power. The gentleman from Georgia claims for 
his constituents the right to exi'rcise tiiis sov- 
ereign power in the Territorie.s, in di sjjite of the 
Getieral Government, by estahli.shing the insti- 
tution of slavery. Wliatever may be the tenure 
of slavery in the States — whether it rests upon 
State law, the law of actual force, or the law of 
nations, no such power as the gentleman claims 
can ever be conceded to the citizens of the slave- 
holding States. To concede that would be to 
surrender, by the national Govunment, abso- 
lutely, its right of sovereigntyin the Territories 
to the citizens of a seciioh to establish a sectional 
institution; and this Government would fail to 
accomplish one of the great — perhajis 1 should 
say the greatest — objects for which it was created. 

None of the Stales ever had any title to the 
soil or the sovereignty of Kansas. That Terri- 
tory was acquired by the Federal Government , 
in its sovereign capacity, long after the Consti- ' 
tution was adopted. The same ael that ceded 
the soil of this Territory to our Government, 
also, in express terms, ceded all the rights of 
sovereignty over it; and it will not be contended 
that any State can legally or rightfully so legis- 
late as to affect in any way the institutions of that 
Territory. If the States themselves have no 
power in the premisi-s, how can they confer the 
f)0wer upon their citizens to establish their State 
laws in these Territories, against the consent of 
Congress, and without the aid of any territorial 
law .-' 

Sir, these Territories, prior to the passage of 
the Kansas-Nebraska bill, had no law but the 
law of nature and the Constitution of the United 
Slates; and neither of these establish 4*r uphold 
slavery. Thereisno legal slavery there. But the 
claim is made, that the citizens of the slavehold- 
ing States can plant il there in defiance of the 
General Government, and then compel the Gov- 
ernment to uphold and defend it. The proposi- 
tion is monstrous. It gives the citizens of the 
slaveholding Stales the absolute and exclusive 
control of the whole question, and of all the 
Territories. They do, il is true, concede in the 
argument, to freemen the privilege of cultivating 
the soil in tliose Territories, upon the condition 
that they should assume asocial position approxi- 
mating nearer to that of the slave than of liis mas- 
ter. 'I'hey do in argument hero, concede the right 
of the citizens of the free States to emigrate to the 
Territories; but they claim for themselves the 
exclusive right, when they emigrate tiiere, of 
carrying with them the laws of the States from 
which they emigrate, and of which they are no 
longer citizens. 

The gentleman from Georgia has said that 
"there is not a slaveholder in this House or out 
of it but who knows perfectly wi II that, whenever 
slavery is confined within certain specified limits, 
its future existence is doomed; il is only a ques- 
tion of time as to its final destruction." And 
the gentleman tells us that, "if we lake any slave 
holtling county in the southern States in which 
the great staples of cotton and sugar are culti- 
vated to any •ctent, and confine the present slave- 
population within the limits of that c"uniy,such 
is the rapid nauiral inert'ase of the slaves and the 
rapid exhaustion ol" the soil in the cultivation of 
those crops, that in a few years it would be im- 



possible to support them within the limits of such ' 
county; liotli ninstcr and slnvo wrinM hn stnrvi-d 
out; and what would l)t' llir [uacti.-nl iirci-i innny 
one cdUiity, ilic s:Mn(! n-sull would lia[>pi-n in nil 
the slrtvihdldinjc States" — tluit " sliivi ry cannot 
be confined witliin certain specified limits with- 
out producinjr llie destruction of l>i)tli nuisl.rnnd 
slave; it nqmreH fnsh laiuls, plenty of wood nnii 
water, not only for the conUnrt and liajipineKs of 
the slave, lint for the hi'Uefit of the owner." This 
is the plea in behalf of slaviryexiensioii. Heeause 
it exhausts the sod — because sii-riliiy and deso- 
lation mark its patli — l)ecause it would starve 
itself out, if confined within anij limits, slavery 
must have unlimited power of expansion ! iJo 
notgentltinen perceive that this is a conclusive and 
unansweral>le argument against the existence of | 
this " peculiar institution" anywhere? | 

Mr. W.VRNHll. Will tin' £;entlcmnn from 
New York allow me to interrupt him a moment.' 

Mr. KIOLSKV. Certainly. 

Mr. WARiNIsR. The {gentleman has stated 
my remarks fairly. I do not desire to quality ' 
them in any respect whatever. Hut when lie 
attributes that result to slave lab(»r, allow me to 
say to him, that the same result would happen 
if these crops were cultivated by tree labor — tlie 
same result precisely. It is not the kind of labor 
employed, but it is the peculiar character of the 
cro]):* ihemselves, and the peculiar character of 
the cultivation of these crops, as well as the pecu- 
liar charaiitor of the climate where those crops 
are cultivated. We have plantations cultivated 
on a small scale Ijy white labor; in my imme- 
diate neighborliood, and those lands are quite 
as much exhausted ,and more so, than those cul- 
tivated by slave labor, for the reason tliat they 
have not the same force to keep them in llie 
proper condition, and to prevent the eU'ects which 
result from thi; cultivation of the cotton crops. 
Tliey have not the force to make hillside ditches, 
and prevent their lands from washing, to which 
they are niucli exposed in consequence of the 
necessary li;_'ht culture in the production of the 
cotton crop. The same result precisely happens, 
■whether the lands are cultivated by slave or by 
free labor. j 

Mr. KELSEY. I am not familiar with the 
cultivation of the crops alluded to by the gentle- 
man; but I do not suppose tliey are more exhaust- 
ing to the soil than many of the crops cultivated 
at llie North by free labor, and wliere their sys- 
tem of husbandry, instead of impoverishing, 
enrich(>s the land. And if the same system of 
husbandry were resorted to with these crops, I 
have! no doubt that the same results would follow. 
But that system of cultivation never will be re- 
sorted to until a system is inaugurated that shall 
pay to labor its just reward. It is cultivation by 
the arm of the intelligent free laborer, that will 
enrich and not impoverish the soil of any country. 

But suppose we give up all the Territories to 
slavery: will that satisfy its demands.' No; for 
the gentleman tells us it " cannot be confined 
within certain specified limits without producing 
the destruction of both master and slave." And 
when the Territories have beim overrun — when 
the wood has been consumed, and the soil worn 
out, slavery must spread still further, or cease 
to exist. If it is to spread still further, where 
ahall it go.> If there is no virgin soil except. 



I within free States, it must have that. The pleii 
of necestiiiy will be still airongtT then than it is 
now, ami will be pres.ied with iiion: urgency and 

backed by mon; power. 

iSir, this (piestioti must be met and settled now. 
.\nd in my |ud:;meiit there m but om- l)asis upon 
which It can b<- settled ho that it will remain set- 
ili d. The absolute sovereignly ot" the (jeniTnl 
Ciovernineiit over ihe Territories musi be admit- 
ted, as it always hiw bi.-eii pruRiically udiiiitted, 
until this controversy was forced upon us; and 
the duty of this (iovirnmeiit to i xcliide shivery 
from free ii'rntory must bi- ackiiowledge-d and 
jicrliirmed. The manner in which that duty shall 
lie performed is not very material, provided it in 
done speedily and ellectually. There is one way 
I of eflecting this object that ought to be entirely 
I satisfactory to the advricalcs of th(- Kansus^Nc- 
I braska act, who have sustained that measure upon 
the grounii that it left the people of those Terri- 
tories at liberty to settle this (luestioii I'or them- 
selves; and that way is to admit Kansas into the 
Union with her present free cniistitutiini. Her 
people have settleil this question for themselves, 
notwitlistanding her territory has bein invaded, 
her territorial government usurped, and her citi- 
zens lynched and murderecl. TIk; freemen of 
Kansas have decided in favor of freedom, and 
they call on you to redeem your pledges, and 
admit them into the Union. Hut ilpy have not 
decided this question as ymi wished, and you 
hesitate to redeem your promises, ^'ou tell us, 
and the President tells us, thi.s constitution was 
made by a ]iarty,«|Kl therefore Kansas must not 
be admitted. Well, sir, how many Stale consti- 
tutions have been made that were not made by a 
party.' Is there a single one now in existence 
that was not framed by delegates, a large major- 
ity of whom were ehcted by a party vote, and 
in a large majority of cases have not tlio.se con- 
stitutions been adopted by a party vote? 

But the President and his friends tell us, that 
neither Congress nor the Territorial Legislature 
authorized the ]ieople of Kansas to form this 
constitution. And this oijjection is uri;ed by the 
advocates of "squatter sovereignly." What! 
gentlemen, do you object to the squatter sover- 
eigns exercising the jiower you have so lately 
insisted that they possess? if the inhabitants of 
a Territory really liave the right of sovereignty 
in that Territory, will you presume to dictate to 
them when or how they shall exercise that 
power? You repudiate the princijde of squatter 
sovereignly the moment you allemjit any dicta- 
tion to or interference wiili them in this matter. 
True, you never have piactically acknowledged 
that the inhabitants of this Territory ['ossess the 
right of sovereignly over it. You have retained 
the control of the executive and judicial branches 
of tiieir Governmi;nt, while pretending to give 
lhi;m full power over all sulijects of legislation, 
or, as you say in your Kansas-Nebraska act, 
you leave them perlectly free to form their own 
local and domestic institutions. Hut what a 
perfect mockery is this declaration, if the positions 
taken by thegi;ntleman fn>m Georgia nre correct! 
In the Kansas-Nebraska act, you say the people 
of those Territories shall dei.^rmine whether they 
will have slavery or not. The gentleman from 
Georgia says that the people of the slave States 
have the right to determine that question by taking 



8 



their slaves into the TerritoricB, and there holding 
them as property; and that you not only cannot 
prevent them from doin^ so, but that you are 
bound to protect them in doing it. 

I have no doubt that the doctrine of the gen- 
tleman from Georgia is now the doctrine of the 
Democratic party. The interests of slavery re- 
quire that the doctrine of " squatter sovereignty" 
should now be abandoned, and it has been done 
by the very men who brought it into existence. 
The doctrines of the gentleman from Georgia 
settle this question, practically and forever, in 
favor of the claims of slavery, and therefore they 
will be ado]ited. Some northern Democrats may 
object to this at first, but they will eventually 
yieiii.as they always have yielded to such de- 
mands, to preserve the "nationality" of their 
party, and to '* save the Union !" 

Mr. WARNER. If the gentleman from New 
York will allow me— I have not maintained the 
doctrine of squatter sovereignly, in the general 
acceptation of that term. 

Mr. KELSEY. I did not impute to the gen- 
tleman that he maintained that doctrine. My 
f»oint was, that the doctrine of squatter sovereignty 
lad been repudiated by the Democratic party, 
and that the doctrines laid do.wn some time ago 
by the gentleman had been adopted by the Dem- 
ocratic party in its stead. 

Mr. WARNER. 1 repudiate the doctrine of 
squatter sovereignty. I hold that, in the organ- 
ization of the Territories, the people of the Ter- 
i-itories can exercise no other powers than those 
delegated to them. My position is, that the 
Territories are the common property of the peo- 
ple of all the States of the Union; but that so 
long as they remain in their territorial condition. 
Congress has no power to discriminate against 
the people of one section of the Confederacy, 
that they shall remain as property common to all 
until such time ai^hey shall assemble in conven- 
tion, with the assemDf Congress, to form a State 
constitution to be admitted into the Union as 
States, when the people may then decide whether 
they shall have slavery or not. The southern 



people have no desire to establish slavery in any 
territory, but to have the people of all the States 
perfectly free to settle that common territory with 
their property, and, when they come to form a 
State constitution, to decide the question of 
slavery for themselves. 

Mr. KELSEY. 1 agree with the gentleman 
frorH'Georgia that Congress has no right to dis- 
crim^iate between the people of the different sec- 
tions of the country, in permitting them to go 
into the Territories of the United States. My 
position is that Congress shall prevent any such 
discrimination as would permit the citizens of one 
section to carry with them the laws of the States 
from which they emigrate, while the citizens of 
other sections can do no such thing. 1 insist 
on real equality of rights for the citizens of all 
sections of the country. 

But, sir, the Union is always in peril when 
there is any serious objection to granting all that 
the interests of slavery demand. And the gen- 
tleman tells us, in his speech, that the people of 
Georgia have assembled in convention, and sol- 
emnly resolved that if Congress shall pass a law 
excluding them from the common territory with 
their slave property, they will disrupt the ties 
that bind them to the Union. And this is not a 
'* threat," the gentleman tells us; for Georgia 
never threatens. But it is the same, in substance, 
as the '^threats" of dissolving the Union that we 
have heard at intervals for the last twenty-five 
years. This is probably intended, by the people 
of Georgia, merely as a learning. But whether 
intended as a warning or a threat, it is a produc- 
tion that has often emanated from the slave States 
— South Carolina and Georgia having produced 
their full share of the article. But 1 can assure 
the gentleman that, so far as I know the views of 
the people of the North, neither these threats nor 
warnings will have any effect upon them. They 
will not subscribe to the doctrine, that slavery has 
the right to expand itself over the Territories, in 
despite of the legislation of Congress; they will 
not consent to any further extension of slavery, 
under any pretense, or in view of any alternative 
whatever. 



W46 

















<> *'.'.•* .0 

































;* <L^ 


















A <* - . . ' 

• 4 O 



>* . » • 0, 










!Pv\ 






















4 o. 












^^/^"rr* ,o«- 




A" . 1 • . . -^ 



L^^ •< 















py 
























% 



v^ .♦i:^'*^ <^ 



,^ . t . - '**■ 



-^^.^ 



"a. 9*^' 



1 • A^*^ - 




> V* • • • ■ 

















,.*^ /Jlfej\ *^^.J' :'^i/)k. ^*..<.* /.^Ife*-. %».^* • 



J I ^t 








